Karnataka High Court
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Sri M Manohar on 26 March, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, B M Shyam Prasad
1
W.P.No.23411/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.23411 OF 2017 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
102-B, STATESMAN HOUSE,
104, BARAKAMBA ROAD,
NEW DELHI: 110 001.
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE,
BSNL NO.1, S.V. ROAD, HALASURU,
BENGALURU-560 008.
3. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM
BSNL, BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT
TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M. MANOHAR
AGE: 20 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI M. MUNIYAPPA
RESIDING AT TALUK OFFICE ROAD
2
W.P.No.23411/2017
4TH WARD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 110.
2. SMT.N.MANJULA,
AGE: 48 YEARS
W/O. LATE SRI M. MUNIYAPPA
RESIDING AT TALUK OFFICE ROAD
4TH WARD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 110.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2017 PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH,
BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.170/00911/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-C,
AS THE SAME IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS ON
NO.170/00911/2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, B M SHYAM PRASAD J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners - Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and its Officers have filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 03.02.2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) in O.A.No.170/00911/2016 whereby the Tribunal has permitted the second respondent (wife of the deceased employee) to file an application for appointment on 3 W.P.No.23411/2017 compassionate grounds, while permitting the first respondent (son of the deceased employee) to withdraw his application for appointment on such grounds with further directions to the petitioners to consider the second respondent's application for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with law within the time frame mentioned.
Sri M. Muniyappa, the husband of the second respondent and father of first respondent, who was working as a Telephone Supervisor with the petitioners died in harness on 08.02.2010. Initially, the first respondent submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, and the petitioners, by an order dated 29.10.2015, rejected such application on the ground that he would be entitled for weightage points below the eligible 55 weightage points, and in terms of the provisions of the Scheme evolved by them to assess eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds, it would be impermissible for the petitioners to issue appointment to the first respondent. Later, the first respondent submitted an application requesting the petitioners to consider 4 W.P.No.23411/2017 at least the claim of his mother, the second respondent, for such appointment which was rejected by the petitioners by order dated 20.01.2016 on the ground that earlier, the second respondent was given an opportunity to seek appointment on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband, but the family had voluntarily decided that the first respondent should make an application seeking such appointment; and that such an application by the first respondent having been rejected by order dated 29.10.2015, it will not be possible for the petitioners to give one more opportunity to the second respondent to apply for appointment on compassionate ground.
The respondents filed application in O.A.No.170/00911/2016 before the Tribunal challenging both the orders dated 29.10.2015 and 20.01.2016 and seeking direction to the petitioners to reconsider the request by the family for appointment on compassionate ground to the first respondent, or in the event the first respondent not being 5 W.P.No.23411/2017 entitled to the requisite weightage points, to issue such appointment to the second respondent.
The Tribunal by the order dated 03.02.2017, which is impugned in this petition, considered, inter alia, the facts that the second respondent was a widow living on one kidney; that the request for her was made only because the application by her son, who was minor at the time of demise of her husband, was rejected on the ground that he could not secure requisite weightage points; and that even the counsel for the petitioners had submitted that if only the second respondent had applied, she would be entitled for additional 15 additional weightage points and consequentially stand a good chance to secure appointment. In view of these facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal permitted the first respondent to withdraw his application and allowed the second respondent to make an application within two months with directions to the petitioners to consider the application, if made by the second respondent, within a period of next two months in accordance with law. 6 W.P.No.23411/2017
The learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the impugned order by the Tribunal, has argued that the Tribunal could not have directed the petitioners to consider the second respondent's physical condition of living on one kidney as a handicap or a disability while considering her application for appointment on compassionate grounds as that would be contrary to the provisions of the Scheme evolved by the respondents in this regard. But, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that this argument has no bearing on the substance of the matter.
It is not in dispute that when the first respondent submitted his application on the first occasion seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioners advised the Respondents that the first respondent should submit his application in the prescribed form, which is referred to as synopsis, after he completed the age of majority; and the application filed by the first respondent after he attained majority, was rejected on the grounds that he would be entitled only for 41 weightage points. It is also an undisputed 7 W.P.No.23411/2017 fact that if the second respondent, wife of the deceased employee, was advised to submit application on her behalf, the petitioners would be constrained, in terms of the Scheme evolved by them in that regard, to give the second respondent additional 15 weightage points on the count of her being the widow.
It is also noticed that in terms of the Scheme evolved by the petitioners, the second respondent could also, perhaps justifiably, claim another additional 5 weightage points on the count of the first respondent being a minor as on the date of demise of the deceased.
It is only in the undisputed facts and circumstances, and the fact that the second respondent is not otherwise disqualified to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, the impugned order is made by the Tribunal permitting the first respondent to withdraw his application and permitting the second respondent to file an application with a further direction to the petitioners to consider such application in 8 W.P.No.23411/2017 accordance with concerned rules. The observation by the Tribunal that the family of the deceased employee should survive and that the petitioners should consider the second respondent's handicap as a person with one kidney, in any event, should be considered as calling upon them to consider the second respondent's application for appointment on compassionate grounds in a fair, just and expedited manner.
Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are unable to find any infirmity or perversity in the Tribunal's impugned order dated 03.02.2017 so as to call for interference in this petition.
Accordingly the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE nv